 Good morning and welcome to the 31st and final meeting of 2017 of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. Can we make sure that all electronic devices are on silent and off the table please? And we have apologies this morning from our colleague Annie Wells. Agenda item 1 is to take agenda item 4 in private. Are we content to do that? Yes. The agenda item 2 is one of our two substantive issues this morning, and it's the gender representation and public boards Scotland bill. I'd like to welcome the cabinet secretary, Angela Constance MSP. Angela is the cabinet secretary for social communities, social security and equalities, and the minister is currently in charge of this bill. Our aim is to complete stage 2 consideration this morning, so be mindful of that. Before we move on to consideration for amendments, I think that it would be helpful if I set out the procedure for stage 2. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill, as I introduced the martial list of amendments that was published on Monday, and the groupings of amendments that sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments, and I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment, and then to speak to all of the other amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate to me in the usual way. If the cabinet secretary has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite her to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding-up speech. As with a debate in the chamber, the member who is winding up on a group may take interventions from other members if they so wish. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment or to vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the martial list. Only committee members are allowed to vote on stage 2. Voting in any division is by a show of hands, and it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill and schedule of the bill, so I will put a question on each at the appropriate point. Moving on to stage 2 as agreed. The first section that we have is to call amendment—oh, sorry, there we go, already—a question that section 1 of the bill will be agreed. Are we all agreed? Okay. Section 2 of the bill, the meaning of women, so I call the amendment 10 in the name of Mary Fee, which is in a group of its own. Mary Fee is to move and speak to amendment 10. Thank you, convener. Amendment 10 in my name seeks to alter the current definition of women in the bill to ensure that the legislation is as inclusive as possible. The amendment guarantees that people who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who live as a woman are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone the process of becoming a woman. Without this amendment, the inclusivity of this bill would be limited. The current definition of women in the draft bill only covers trans women with a full gender recognition certificate. The gender recognition certificate enables trans people to be legally recognised in their affirmed gender and to be issued with a new birth certificate. However, it is also worth noting that not all trans people choose to apply for a gender recognition certificate, as the certificate is not required for individuals to change their gender markers at work or to legally change their gender on other documentation, including UK passports. Passage of amendment 10 would ensure that the gender representation on public board Scotland bill promotes equality and inclusivity by adopting the broad definition of a woman recognising that not all trans women possess a gender recognition certificate. Thank you very much, Mary. Any other members wish to contribute to the debate? I am not content. Cabinet Secretary, welcome. Would you like to contribute this morning? Yes, indeed, convener. Thank you very much. I could start by thanking the committee for its consideration of the bill. During stage 1, I have found engagement between committee members and the Scottish Government to be helpful and to be constructive. That is one of the reasons that I wanted to ensure that the committee was fully appraised of the Government's intentions at stage 2, as outlined in my letter to the committee last week. At the end of our session this morning, I am confident that we will have a bill that is better and stronger than that with which we started. I also very much welcome the co-operation of Alex Cole-Hamilton and Mary Fee in regard of the amendments in their name. I am pleased to be supporting them today. I am sure that many of us will agree that it quite simply is not acceptable that, in 2007, women continued to be underrepresented in decision-making positions across Scotland, including in the boardroom. What the bill seeks to redress is under representation on Scotland's public boards and lock in the gains that have been made to date, ensuring that women's voices are heard where it matters. While the bill is not a panacea for all aspects of women's inequality, however, it is absolutely the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. If the bill can be a catalyst for the equal representation of women in other decision-making spaces, then I am for one or for that. Turning now to Mary Fee's amendment 10, convener, we have worked with Mary Fee to ensure that this amendment realises the policy in 10 and is within the competence of this Parliament. I would very much like to thank Mary Fee for her work on this area with us. She has advocated passionately throughout stage 1 that the bill should be inclusive of trans women, and this has always been the Scottish Government's intention to. I would also like to put in record my thanks to the Scottish Trans Alliance, who have afforded the Scottish Government their time, their expertise and their support, not just in relation to the bill but more generally to and it is greatly appreciated. I am pleased therefore that we have reached the point that we have today of having a suitable amendment that will ensure that, when we talk about women in the bill, that includes trans women. To confirm that, I support the amendment in Mary Fee's name. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Mary Fee, to wind up and in your winding up, can you move the amendment and tell me whether you are going to press or withdraw? Thank you. I am grateful to the comments from the cabinet secretary. I thank her for the help and support that she has given me. It is helpful to put on record the help and support that the Trans Alliance has given me. I have no further comments to make other than that. I will move the amendment in my name and press the amendment. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. The question is that section 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Schedule 1 is that I now call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 2. Thank you, convener. Amendment 2 is a technical amendment that adds a small number of members who are nominated to the boards of regional transport partnerships to the excluded positions in schedule 1. That is consistent with the exclusion of nominated positions on the boards of other public authorities that are covered by the bill. I move and encourage members to support amendment 2. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Do any members want to contribute to the debate? Cabinet secretary, can you wind up and press your amendment? I will just press the amendment. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Section 4 is that I call amendment 1 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton in a group of its own. Alex Cole-Hamilton can ask you to move and speak to amendment 1. Thank you, convener. I am very proud to move amendment 1 in my name. I also put on my record my thanks to the Scottish Government special advisers and the bill team for their collaboration in this and an open discussion in the access that they gave me in compiling this. The reasons behind my submission of amendment 1 was to increase the strength of section 4, because right now, as it stood, I believed that the tie break situation, as defined in section 4 whereby two equally qualified candidates, one of whom was a woman, that the reasoning for allowing an appointing person to give the job to the person who was not a woman was based on the idea that there was a characteristic particular to that individual. Now we legislate in this place and we must do so with the view to less enlighten times ahead. I thought that it was important to delineate what exactly we meant by characteristics in that regard. It is fair to say that the intent of the bill and the bill team was that this characteristic was specifically to improve the diversity of the board or some specific relevant factor which might increase that. My amendment in this regard is merely to spell that out. I think that we heard a lot of evidence during the stages of our consideration in the foothills of stage 1 from a range of stakeholders that they were anxious that other protected characteristics were missing from the legislation. My amendment is intended to address that. If we find ourselves in less enlightened times that no subsequent administrations or appointing persons could decide that particular characteristics for individuals would choose to appoint a woman might not be nefarious that they were somehow friendly with that person, that was their particular characteristic. I understand that this will be underscored by statutory guidance. I thought that it was important to put the reference of protected characteristics on the bill so that future administration and future committees would understand that this was about improving diversity and that that would also signal the direction of travel to appointing people and public authorities. I thank Mr Cole-Hamilton for his welcome addition. However, I might have a question that he might address in summing up. That is a concern that, with the additional wording to include protected characteristics, it creates a scenario in which the appointing person is in any way confused as to whether preference or precedence is given to the appointment of a woman or another protected characteristic. I am not sure that the amendment addresses that potential dilemma that the appointing person may face. Although I appreciate that, that may be detailed in guidance, which we will discuss at a later part of the debate. By not making it clear in primary legislation, are we opening ourselves up to a scenario where it is unclear whether the gender characteristic has greater or less white than other protected characteristics? I am going to go to cabinet secretary now to contribute to the debate. Thank you very much, convener. I am pleased that we have been able to work with Alex Cole-Hamilton on this amendment, which provides clarity about the operation of section 4.4. As Alex Cole-Hamilton has set out in section 4, 4 talks about a characteristic or situation particular to that candidate. That includes a protected characteristic, as defined by the Quality Act 2010. If an appointing person is making a decision between two equally qualified candidates, one of whom, for example, is a woman and one of whom, for example, is a minority ethnic or disabled man, the appointing person could give preference to the man if he considers that to be justified. Obviously, that will be discussed further in guidance. That is not an automatic preference. The appointing person does not automatically have to give preference to the ethnic minority or disabled man, but they may do so if they consider it to be justified. Convener, I confirm that I support Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment and encourage other members to do likewise. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment. Thank you, convener. I certainly wish to press my amendment. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her remarks and indeed for her support. I am also grateful for Jamie Greene's question. It gives me the opportunity to clarify the questions that he asks and the reasoning behind the amendment. As it stood, Jamie Greene's question was about clarity and whether that would confuse things. As it stood, that part of section 4 was open to misinterpretation. If we find ourselves in many years and hadn't said that we needed that clarity behind it, the reasoning being that, right now, in the draft legislation, as it is before us, before amendment, we talk about a characteristic particular to that individual being the point at which an appointing person could choose that equally qualified candidate overall. To me, that feels far more opaque than just saying, we need to be clear as to what kind of thing we're talking about here. I think that by including the term protected characteristic alongside, and I support in discussion with the Government, my original amendment was to just have it solely saying protected characteristic, but that might have unintended consequences of ruling out additional groups who might, while improving the diversity of the board, people with care experience, for example. This is also going to be very complementary to statutory guidance, which will underpin it, which will make it clear that the only point at which you would choose somebody who is not a woman over an equally qualified woman would be to improve the diversity of the board. To my mind, that improves the clarity of the bill and will give a statement of intent for future decision makers in this place as to what we had in mind. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? And the question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Moving on to section 5, I call the amendment 11, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, in a group of its own. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move and speak to amendment 11, Alex. Thank you, convener. Again, I am very proud to move amendment 11 in my name. The reason for this is that I found the evidence that we received from other stakeholders and indeed private representations from stakeholders is very compelling in the sense that, again, in the spirit of avoiding unintended consequences, we introduced amendment 11 so that people who are both appointing people and the public authority to whom the duty to take such steps as they consider necessary to encourage applications by women should not prejudice their efforts to encourage applications by other diversity groups. The amendment speaks for itself. I do not think it in any way detracts from the overarching aim of this bill, which I think that we would all support to increase the representation of women on public boards. However, the amendment merely ensures that we do not do so at the expense of efforts to encourage the applications of other equalities groups. Thank you, convener. I am pleased to support the amendment in Alex Cole-Hamilton's name and thank him for giving me notice in advance of him tabling it. I put in record earlier my thanks to the Scottish Trans Alliance. I also want to thank stakeholders such as women5050, as I said earlier, the Scottish Trans Alliance in gender, the Scottish Women's Convention, commissioned for ethical standards on public life in Scotland, the equality challenge unit and the universities and college union Scotland and colleges Scotland. In essence, the bill is about improving the representation of women, women of all ages, women of all ethnicities, heterosexual women, gay women, bisexual women, transgender women, disabled women as well as those who are not disabled. Women are not a minority, they are more than half of the population and it is perfectly acceptable, in my view, to take targeted action to address that inequality. However, that does not mean that we do not need to take action in other areas too, including to address the underrepresentation of other groups of people on public boards and, in relation to ministerial public appointments, the Scottish Government's public appointments team is already taking forward a range of activity, including in relation to outreach. There is nothing in the bill that precludes action being taken in other areas or in respect of other groups, so I can confirm that I support the amendment in Alex Cole-Hamilton's name. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to wind up and press your amendment. Thank you, convener. No further remarks, only to say thank you to the various stakeholder groups who helped us to get to this point and gave illuminating evidence in the stage 1 proceedings and I press the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that section 5 be agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that section 6 be agreed, are we all agreed? Moving on to guidance. I call amendment 3 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 3. The committee said quite clearly, both in its written report following stage 1 and members stated during the stage 1 debate, that guidance is needed to support the operation of the act. The committee also said that it thinks guidance should be statutory and that it should apply equally to regulated and non-regulated public boards. In doing so, the committee has reflected the views of those who have submitted written evidence and gave oral evidence to committee during stage 1. The Scottish Government has listened to the evidence presented in favour of guidance and accepts the committee's recommendations. Amendment 3 says that Scottish ministers must publish guidance on the operation of the act and it also sets out certain aspects of the bill that guidance must in particular cover as the committee requested, for example, section 4. I reassure the committee that we will draft guidance in consultation with public authorities and others, including the commissioner for ethical standards and public life in Scotland and the equality and human rights commission. I fully expect that guidance will be shaped by what they tell us during that process. Convener, I move and urge members to support amendment 3. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Members want to speak in the debate. Jenny Greene. Thank you, convener, and thank you, cabinet secretary. May I just confirm or clarify a few points in amendment 3, subsections 3 and 4? Specifically, subsection 3, where the wording is that an appointing person must have regard to the guidance in carrying out its functions. I appreciate that language that is used in other parts of the legislation, but it feels that it is open to interpretation as to what have regards to means and what the consequences of not having regards to might mean to the appointing person. My only concern is that, with this place, any additional statutory obligations on appointing people within those organisations to demonstrate that they have regard to the guidance and any potential negative consequences of being proven to have not had regard to the guidance. It is just a point of clarification that I would appreciate before we are able to decide on whether to support that particular amendment. Thank you, Jenny Greene. Any other members wishing to contribute to this part of the debate? Cabinet secretary, to wind up and press your amendment. Just very briefly, convener, Mr Greene is correct to say that the wording that is reflected in the amendments is very much the norm. You will see that in countless other examples of legislation passed by this Parliament. Obviously, guidance gives you the opportunity and consultation stakeholders to explore all the nuances in further details. When you look at the bill in the round in particular of the reporting requirements, that is the route by which people are held to account. That gives the link between outcomes and actions in terms of how people have responded to the statutory guidance. I do not have anything further to add, convener, other than to encourage members to support the amendment. It is indeed an amendment that was requested by committee, and very strong evidence and representations were made to the Government, particularly during the stage 1 debate. I move the amendment in my name. Section 7, on reports. I call amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 5, 6 and 7. The cabinet secretary, would you move amendment 4 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I will indeed speak to all of the amendments in this group and move amendment 4. The Scottish Government's amendments to section 7 of the bill on reporting are directly in response to the committee's recommendations. We have introduced a requirement on Scottish ministers to report to the Scottish Parliament on the operation of the act in accordance with regulations at intervals of no more than two years. Whilst the committee asks for annual reports, when considering this amendment, I have taken the view that, by annual reporting, it would ensure that reporting requirements for this act align with those of the Equality Act 2010 Scottish-specific duties. I have also strengthened the provisions on reporting to make clear that Scottish ministers, other appointing persons and public authorities will be required to publish reports on the carrying out of their functions under the act. That includes the steps that have been taken to encourage applications from women under section 5, which I know the committee was particularly keen to see, which Alec Cole-Hamilton made representations to the Scottish Government in support of. The Scottish Government agrees wholeheartedly with the committee and with those who gave evidence at stage 1 that reporting is absolutely crucial to the bill's effectiveness. There must be transparency both in terms of the numbers and whether the gender representation objective has been met, but also in terms of the steps that have been taken, the practical, tangible action that will help us to achieve the bill's objective. I move amendment 4 and urge members to support amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7. Thank you very much. Any comments from Alec Cole-Hamilton? Thank you, convener. I would like to speak in particular to amendment 5. That is right. I am grateful again to the cabinet secretary for the discussions that we had around this. I think that everyone agreed in stage 1 that we had an anxiety as a committee around the phraseology, necessary as it is in terms of the legal requirements around legislation, that public boards and appointing persons should take such steps as they consider appropriate to encourage women. By adopting a reporting duty around this, we will concentrate minds in both camps as to how they pursue and execute that duty. It will also, hopefully, disseminate best practice as well. When those reports are published, boards who perhaps are not doing as much as they could do to encourage applications by women or who do not know how to go about that will pick up on the experience of other boards who are delivering that as a matter of best practice. I absolutely support the amendments in the cabinet secretary's name. Thank you very much, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Jamie Greene Thank you, convener. I add from the outset that, although my party did not support the bill at stage 1, I have made a conscientious decision to actively engage in stage 2 proceedings so that in the event if the bill eventually passes, it is in the best shape it can be. I feel that that is the duty of all MSPs to do so, regardless of their stance on the objectives of the bill. Many of the points on a rationale behind being unable to support the bill have been extensively outlined in the stage 1 debate, and no doubt will be addressed at stage 3 also. Any objections to any of the amendments in 4, 5, 6 or 7 today are largely technical in the relation to sections 4 and 6 of the bill in its current form, which my party does not support. I would like to add that section 5 is a welcome section. There are many welcome amendments in addition to the bill today, however, I am pleased to support on the specifics of amendment 4. In particular, I felt that I was able to support subsections A1 to A3, which placed the duty on Scottish ministers to report. However, I was unable to support section A4, which placed the duty on the pointing person to publish reports in the current out of its functions under sections 3 to 6, which include sections 4 and 6, which we are in principle unable to support. Amendment 5, in a similar vein, and amendment 6 is a technical one that relates to amendment 4, so it would seem odd not to group that with opposition to amendment 4. Amendment 7, however, seems to be largely technical, tying up with the language of the bill to include sections A1 to A1, so I would be happy to support that particular amendment. I suppose that we should be grateful for Mr Greene's continuing interest, and I hope that, as we progress with stage 2 and approach stage 3, that perhaps he and his colleagues can have a change of heart. I am absolutely convinced that this bill is the right thing to do. I have nothing further to add on the substantive issues, convener, other than to encourage members to support the amendments that have moved and to support amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we have a division. Can I ask those who support amendment 4 to please show, and those against amendment 4, please show? And no abstentions? Any abstentions? No? The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed. The number of votes 4 is 4, and the number of votes against is 1, and abstentions is 0, so amendment 4 is therefore agreed to. I am going to call amendments 5, 6 and 7, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to move amendments 5 to 7 on block? Can I ask if any member objects to amendments 5 to 7 being moved on block? Object, Jamie? I am going to put each amendment one after each other, so can I ask if amendment 5 be agreed to? No, we have a division. Can I ask those who support amendment 5 to please show, and those against amendment 5? Any abstentions? No? The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. The number of votes for amendment 5 is 5, and the number of votes against is 1, and the number of votes against is 0, so amendment 5 is therefore agreed to. I am going to call amendment 6 and ask if amendment 6 is agreed to. Amendment 6, we have a division. Same procedure, those in support of amendment 6, those against amendment 6 and no abstentions. The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. The number of votes for amendment 6 is 5, and the number of votes against is 1, and there are no abstentions, so amendment 6 is agreed to. I call amendment 7. Are we agreed to support amendment 7? Agreed. The question is, that section 7 be agreed to. The question is, that sections 8 and 9, schedule 2 and section 10, be agreed to. Section 11 is procedure for regulations. I call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 9. Cabinet secretary, I ask you to move amendment 8 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Amendments 8 and 9 have the effect of making regulations under section 8, subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure, as currently drafted and as recommended by this committee and by the Delegated Powers on the Law Reform Committee. I move amendment 8. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Any member wish to speak in this part of the debate? No. Cabinet secretary, I ask that you wind up. Nothing further to add. Thank you very much. The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Agreed. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated, with amendment 8? Cabinet secretary, I ask you to move that formally. I have formally moved. Thank you very much. The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is, that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is, that section 12 and 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is, that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? On that end stage 2 consideration of the bill. Thank you very much. Can I suspend committee for five minutes to allow for a quick comfort break and for everybody to be back five minutes, because we've not got a lot of time left this morning. Welcome back to the Equality and Human Rights Committee. Moving on to agenda item 3 this morning, it's a draft budget for 2018-19. We have the cabinet secretary to speak to this morning on the Scottish Government's draft budget. The committee adopted a new approach this year by taking evidence and publishing a report before hearing from the cabinet secretary. However, the cabinet secretary has remained with us this morning and with her this morning is two of her officials, Leslie Irving, who is the head of equality policy at the Scottish Government, and Liz Hawking, who is the head of equality poverty social justice analysis at the Scottish Government. You are both very welcome and welcome back to the section of the committee, cabinet secretary. Before we take any questions from committee colleagues, cabinet secretary, I believe that you have an opening statement on the budget. I am very grateful for the invitation to appear before committee today as part of the scrutiny process of the 2018-19 draft budget. I read with great interest your report published on 10 December, which contains some helpful recommendations on budget processes. I look forward to answering questions and discussing the principles of equality budgeting with you today. As I am sure that committee members will agree with me, Scotland needs to be able to harness productivity, creativity and entrepreneurism. You catch my drift, but we need to harness that across the whole of our society. That is why the key budgetary changes in my portfolio are very much rooted in tackling inequalities and promoting inclusive growth. I look forward to answering committee's questions in relation to my portfolio. My colleagues across Government have made the budgetary decisions in their own policy areas, but I hope that you can see that they have also shown regard to tackling inequalities across health, crime, employment, educational attainment and accessibility. Colleagues will be aware that the draft budget delivered £400 million additional resources, investment in health, including an uplift for mental health. There are expanded budgets for early learning in childcare and for colleges and higher education, while the attainment fund included £120 million for pupil equity funding. From my portfolio, funding for the affordable housing programme has increased to £756 million. I have protected funding for fuel, poverty and energy efficiency as well as third sector and empowering communities fund. An additional £38 million will tackle homelessness and social justice commitments such as access to sanitary products. Alongside positive budgets to improve lives, I have also set aside £100 million to protect people from the very worst aspects of UK Government welfare cuts, including funding to mitigate the bedroom tax, which we know disproportionately impacts on disabled people. Finally, the equality budget itself has seen an increase of 12 per cent demonstrating the value that I and my colleagues place in supporting our drives towards a more equal and inclusive society. This additional resource will help us to deliver on our commitments out in the race equality action plan, the disability action plan and our equally safe strategy among others. We will show our commitment to protecting, respecting and implementing human rights for everyone in Scotland. As in previous years, equality analysis and assessment has been undertaken alongside the budget and was published last week in the equality budget statement. This is an important document, but we are very focused on demonstrating year-on-year improvements in our approach. As a committee, we will be aware that this Parliament has passed the Child Poverty Scotland Act, which sets very challenging targets to reduce poverty. Next year, we will receive independent advice from the Poverty and Inequality Commission and will produce a delivery plan to set out how we will work towards those targets. That will require action in the short, medium and long term and it will require aspects of policy and budgets across all portfolios to be directed towards child poverty. It will require good analysis of the barriers and opportunities across issues and protected characteristics and it will require measurement and monitoring of progress. Convener tackling inequalities in terms of income is obviously the core of this particular work, but we know that people and poverty, poverty is higher for disabled people, for minority ethnic people, younger people and lone parents, so tackling child poverty will also be addressing wider inequalities. To me, this is an excellent illustration of how we are developing a mainstreamed cross-portfolio policy and budgetary approaches to key problems with equalities considerations built in from the start. It is important that we work to evidence how all of this translates in an equality budget statement and, of course, that is something very much for discussion as we move forward. As in previous years, we have been supported in the equality budget process by the equality budget advisory group. I would like to put on record my thanks and the Government's thanks to its members for their expertise in sight and the challenge that they bring as we continue to look for the best ways to ensure proper consideration of equality in our budgetary process. This year, we are particularly grateful for the additional input of one of the equality budget advisory group members, Dr Angela Hagan, given her role into the Parliament's independent review of the budget process. The review group asked the equality budget advisory group to take responsibility for leading the challenge and asked for equality aspects of the budget. I and my officials look forward to working with them to decide what further analysis and approaches are feasible given available data methodologies and resources. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I will go with an opening question for you, if you do not mind. Obviously, we know what the budget is for equalities, but you have mentioned many other aspects and cross-portfolio aspects. One of the things that we have picked up very clearly in the work that we have done in the committee and all of the inquiries that we have done is the intersectionality. Where that intersectionality is, is where sometimes you find the deepest pockets of inequality. My question to you, cabinet secretary, is how can we ensure an era of ever-tightening budgets and the challenge on that, how can we ensure that we tackle some of those intersectionality points and where they are at the deepest. You mentioned one about children with disabilities. We have found some evidence of ethnic minority people who do excel at school but do not excel in the workplace and do not have the same opportunities. There are many areas in that progression of a young person's life where those things really hit home, and if we can solve them at the earliest stage, the better. We are looking at you, cabinet secretary, to tell us how you intend and your Government intends to do that through the budget. I think that the point about intersectionality is very important. I do not particularly like the word intersectionality but nobody has come up with a better description. I think that in terms of how recognises that you cannot put people in pigeonholes and quite often people will have more than one characteristic. We know the issues that you have mentioned around people living with disabilities having a higher likelihood of experiencing poverty and there are particular issues for their lone parents. With the publication of the race equality action plan, we know that people living in our minority ethnic communities across Scotland are twice as likely to be living in poverty. You are absolutely right to understand the nuances and being able to have that deep dive is very important. In the debate last week around the race equality action plan, one of the things that we are very focused on is the disparity. Young people from our minority ethnic communities are shining in education and, in many cases, they are outperforming their peers, but that has not been translated into their experience in the labour market. There is work that we need to do that understands that particular aspect better. You will have seen in the race equality action plan that there is a suite, a range of activities around that. It is focused on an education and skills system across the piece. Some of it is about entry levels occupations in and around the work to improve diversity and apprenticeship programmes. Some of it is focused on people's experience in higher education and when they leave higher education or college and their experience in the workplace. There is obviously funding around the workplace equality fund that Jamie Hepburn sees. A more general point is that one of the strengths of the process that we go through to prepare the equality budget statement is that no other country undertakes the analysis that Scotland does across that range of protected characteristics. That is where the strength of our current process does not mean that we do not need to improve it further, but looking at that analysis across the range of protected characteristics leads to that more nuanced consideration of intersectionality. That will also improve with the introduction of the socio-economic duty as well with the regulations being laid that will come into force next April. In terms of our current processes around looking at protected characteristics as a whole, Scotland being the only part in the UK to introduce the dormant part of the equality act and to introduce the socio-economic duty, that gives us some advantages in considering socio-economic disadvantage alongside equality impacts and gives us opportunities to strengthen our work around that, looking at the connectivity between policy, budget and outcomes. I think that our role in this process as the Equalities and Human Rights Committee is to somehow begin a process of percolating consideration of equalities right through all Government directorates and expenditure. That is the purpose of our inquiry and our report and I very much hope and welcome the cabinet secretary's positive response to that. I think that there is always a disconnect between political will and reality, and that is measured out in the lip service that is sometimes paid to equalities and human rights by committees and directorates who do not have this as their focus. Our attention is how do we make that real and how do we pull the equality agenda and human rights agenda through. I wonder if the cabinet secretary can give us her view as to how much of that needs to be backed up by legislation. One of the recommendations of the committee has been, for example, the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to bake that into our legislative processes. Right now, on that same example, we have in part 1 of the 2014 Children and Young People Act, there was a duty to raise awareness of the UNCRC to all public authorities, but that was met the following year with the reduction in the number of children's rights officers across the board. Again, an example of the lip service. To ask the cabinet secretary really, are we doing enough or should we be backing this up with legislation like incorporation of certain treaties? I think it's really important that I don't enter this dialogue in a defensive manner. I think for the reasons that I outlined, Scotland does lead the way internationally in terms of how we publish an equality budget statement at the same time as the draft budget is produced. That is informed by independent advice and earlier comments about us looking at the range of protected characteristics. While I'm proud of that work, I think that we always have to have an eye to how we turn political will into reality. This absolutely has to be a journey and a journey about continuous improvement. I think that there are things that we can certainly do better, and I think that there are things that we can certainly be explaining better. I'm very conscious that in terms of mainstreaming equalities and having it at the core of our decision making processes, that that obligation already exists in terms of the public sector equality duty. The issue there is about how effective is the public sector equality duties. The equality and human rights commission is obviously reviewing the public sector equality duties. As a Government, we have given a commitment to review the Scottish specific duties that underpin the wider duties. Our specific duties are to help to enable public authorities to implement public sector equality duties, and those reviews are important. In terms of the wider point about incorporation, members will be aware of the First Minister's advisory group that is led by Professor Alan Miller. That group will be looking at a range of matters, including the practical steps that are required towards incorporation, and that group will report to the First Minister December next year. A few other points will quickly raise. We have an equality unit in the Scottish Government. Part of their job is to help other departments by getting equalities in at the start. I think that that is always a journey. The Scottish Government staff survey this year demonstrated a high awareness among Scottish Government staff of equality impact assessments, and a significant proportion of nearly 20 per cent of Scottish Government staff over the past two years have had experience of working on equality impact assessments. That demonstrates that we are moving in the right direction. As always, there is more to be done. We need to be committed to working through the detail overall. The other question that I had was about how fleet of foot we can be in the equalities and human rights agenda through our spending, through our policy delivery. That is because we have a set budget at the start of the year. We know that we want to spend in certain areas and the direction of travel, but sometimes new frontiers emerge in the equalities agenda, whether that is, for example, through the refugee crisis a couple of years ago, in the fact that we suddenly decided as a nation to take 2,000 Syrian refugees, or in areas where we had not considered that there was still prejudice emerging, either through the evidence that we took around gypsy travellers last week, or the ongoing debate around gender recognition and how we provide for that in our communities. How responsive can the Scottish Government be to the changing landscape of equalities, or are we locked in for a year and we will have to make those decisions at the next budget? There is a bit of a careful balance here. There is always scope for flexibility. The example that you mentioned when the First Minister established the refugee task force and resource was found not just from the equalities budgets, but from across Government, from a range of departments. He also sees that responsiveness to international crisis. The plea will go out to departments right across Government, as opposed to relying on departments under Ms Hyslop's and Dr Allen's sphere, where the budgets are comparatively small. There is that responsiveness. There is a well trodden path in terms of how we engage with finance colleagues and other colleagues about how to achieve that and, of course, be transparent with Parliament and in and around that. One of the issues we have is that equality groups in the third sector are also seeking certainty. That is one of the reasons I am very proud this year to move to three-year funding for the equalities budget. Yes, we can be a fleet of foot, but we have a budget and a direction of travel because it is only right that we give people that certainty and that we have a shared understanding of the priorities with the equalities communities. They will vary with different organisations, but I think that people also have the right to some certainty. I am indicating that there is a balance here. When we took evidence in a previous session on the budget, one of the questions that I asked was how we follow the money. It is very difficult to follow the money across different portfolio areas. I would be interested in your view on how we improve that. Is it about improving the data that we collect so that we can peg the money as we spend it? Or do you think that there is a job to be done in this place, across portfolio areas, on how people recognise the money that is spent as an equality issue and correctly assess the data from that? I would broadly agree with that. It is comparatively easy in my portfolio, particularly in the equalities aspect of my portfolio, to demonstrate where the money is going and the impact that that is having on equalities. It is indeed a harder task across Government, not one that is insurmountable. We just have to get the balance right between evidence and action because we could be spending even more time on gathering evidence and evaluating impact. I am not suggesting that we should not be doing that for a minute. We need to do that because it informs the virtuous cycle of whether money is being well spent. We need to evaluate the impact and to have evidence about the impact of resource decisions before resource decisions are made. In the housing side of my portfolio, we have done some really interesting work about the impact of our decisions around investment in affordable housing. We know, for example, that affordable housing and reducing people's living costs have a very positive impact on all the indicators that we need to improve to reduce child poverty. There is work around how investment in housing increases the tax intake. To demonstrate that there is broader work across my portfolio and, certainly, there is work across Government as well. We are sometimes limited by the lack of availability of data methodologies. Inevitably, there is a resource issue. You could spend an enormous amount of resources on gathering evidence and monitoring and impact. We just have to ensure that we are proportionate in that so that we are not detracting from the actions that we have to be taking. The child poverty bill, when you mentioned that in your opening statement and you talked about the way that is going to be measured in the monitor, is that something perhaps that is successful that could be used across different portfolio areas? I am obviously biased. I think that the work that we are doing in child poverty is probably going to alienate all my colleagues now. I think that it is probably one of the best examples of a cross-Government endeavour and the need for a cross-Government endeavour. You will not eradicate child poverty by simply increasing a few budget lines in one portfolio. It really needs to be that cross-Government endeavour. You will start to see that evidenced in our first delivery plan. As with everything, there is a complexity. There are some measures that give more of an indication of the impact that they will have on targets, and there are other measures that we absolutely need to be pursuing because they solve those broader systemic issues with our economy and the relationship with targets is less direct, but none the less needs to be done. Investment in childcare, promotion of living wage, our big systemic issues within our economy and our aspirations around inclusive growth. Work around health inequalities, work around fuel poverty, as well as cross-Government endeavour, is educational attainment. That is why the work in and around child poverty is crucial to supporting the work that is going on in education that is focused on teaching, learning, classrooms and resources within schools. We need to be looking at what is happening in communities. However, in terms of the depth of analysis that we as a Government and the Poverty and Inequality Commission are doing in and around our first delivery plan and how we are going to meet our 2030 targets in child poverty, I think that there will be massive learning across Government. I apologise for talking at length, convener. With all the big challenges such as child poverty, the Government alone cannot do this, so it is what we are doing in the world of work. It is what we are doing to work with local Government. It is what the third sector is doing. It is how we can harness the best intelligence from the world of academia to inform evidence. With the massive issues that face us today, it has to be the team Scotland approach. You spoke again in your opening remarks about protecting money. We have heard different views about whether or not there should be reinfencing around the equality budget. Do you think that there is a need in specific areas of equality or inequality where there is massive deprivation? More should be done to reinfence and protect money. The current position in relation to our relationship with local authorities and our negotiated position with COSLA is that we have a presumption against mainstreaming. That does not mean that there is a ban on mainstreaming, but it recognises presumption against it and that we need to revert away from national government, micromanagement and local government. There is lots of evidence that would support that approach in general. Specific ministers will have an on-going relationship with, for example, local government and can indeed enter that dialogue if there are things that need to be reinfenced. While I hear what Mary Fees says and understand what motivates that question, I also think that it is important to point to other work. I have mentioned child poverty that requires different ways of working, but the local governance review as well is about recognising that, often, local solutions to local symptoms of poverty and inequality are best. I think that there are ways to marry different approaches. I think that the local governance review will be very interesting as it takes shape and we proceed with it. I also think that the national performance framework will be a new national performance framework next year. As far as possible, with indicators, we will try to break that down to protected characteristics but also to place and deprivation, which I think will help in getting all the arrows to fly in the right direction, because tackling poverty and inequality is absolutely essential to getting effective public services. Can I come in with a quick supplementary question to Mary Fees? It is that relationship between local authorities. We have had some concern from the work that we have done over the past couple of years about local authorities not completely adhering to equalities processes and certainly some concerns about no equality process and their budget setting process at all, and some concerns about the quality of the data within equality impact assessments. I was just interested in the comment that you made about the local governance review, the public sector equality duty and what the duty of local authorities are, but how that would work with the socio-economic duty that you mentioned would come into force next year. You talked about different approaches being married together. How do we marry those together to make that difference? The evidence that we see in some cases in the budget setting process at local authorities is that they are not mindful of their equalities duty. Probably, like the convener, I have seen a few variable equality impact assessments in my time as well, but that is not just me pointing to local government either. Sometimes within the Scottish Government, we have had to re-look at equality impact assessments, and I pointed earlier to the fact that more staff have experience of doing those equality impact assessments and that staff consider their understanding. The Scottish Government staff understand their issues around equality, and they feel that they understand that well. Where the public sector equality duty and the review that is undertaken by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and our review of the Scottish-specific duties will be helpful in that regard, but we need to be clear that the public sector equality duty does put requirements on public authorities, and we need to be, perhaps at times, sharply pointing that out. Likewise, being able to marry socioeconomic conditions with the public sector equality duty enables that depth of approach and analysis, particularly around intersectionality, in the example that the convener gave earlier. I also want to point out about the local governance review, which is not a two-dimensional discussion between the Scottish Government and local government. Firstly, it is a local governance review, not a review of local government. It is a local governance review, so it has the scope to look across the public sector, with a particular focus, at a local level. In terms of how we take that work forward, we are engaging communities and community representatives, so it is a broader discussion across the public service, and it is not just a two-dimensional discussion between the Scottish Government and the local government. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Jim McGree. In the spirit of time, I will condense my comments down to two specific questions. I hope that the cabinet secretary will receive them in the constructive spirit that they are intended. The first is around the budget. Obviously, this year we are seeing a £2.1 million cash increase in the promoting quality budget, which is welcome, but it is notable that there has been a £3.3 million real-terms cut in that budget over the last decade. My first question is if the cabinet secretary is confident that the cash increase this year will be enough to help to meet the objectives of the promoting the quality budget. My second point is adding to the discussion around the key players involved in what the quality budget is meant to do. It is important to acknowledge that it is not just central government that plays a part in this as a collective multi-agency approach. In that spirit, it is important to recognise the importance that local authorities play in delivering many of the services that the quality budget seeks to, such as tackling violence against women, social isolation, loneliness, strengthening community cohesion, etc. The finance secretary yesterday said that local authorities would need to find efficiencies to meet challenging financial settlement. My question is what role do you think the Scottish Government could take to ensure that when local authorities are finding efficiencies, that this does not, in any way, equate to reduction in any of the front-line services, which are so important in addressing the equality agenda? I thank Mr Green for his question. I hope that he will take my comments in a constructive vein. I suppose that the context in which we are all working in for the Scottish Government third sector local government is that the Scottish Government discretionary budget will have reduced by 8 per cent by 2019-20, and that equates to £2.6 million. We need to recognise that there is a real-terms reduction in the Scottish Government budget overall. It is welcome news that we have a 12 per cent increase in the quality budget. The previous year's budget has been protected in that it has not reduced. There are many other areas in Government where there have been budget reductions, but that did not happen to the equality budget. However, that is, for the first time in many years, a welcome increase. The reason for prioritising an increase in the equality budget is that a large part of the equality budget goes to support front-line services and violence against women and girls. Approaching £12 million of the overall equality budget is around supporting either the implementation of Equally Safe. There is about £67 million going to support front-line services, whether that is Scottish Women's Aid or rape crisis centres, the length and breadth of the country as well. In terms of local government, they have had a nearly £90 million increase in capital and a flat cash settlement. Nobody is disputing that either our budget does not have its restrictions or is not tight, and that, of course, has implications. However, going back to the importance of the principles of the equality budget setting and the equality budget process, that is very much about helping us to make the case for mainstreaming, about helping us to make the case that it is not just the right thing to do, it is a smart thing to address poverty and inequality and to be very focused on equalities. If I am hopeful about the future, it is around that shared agenda from local and national government around inclusive growth. That is evident to me and my officials as we engage with local government and other partners. There is a shared ambition and understanding of the power of inclusive growth, that we need sustainable economic growth that goes hand in hand with tackling inequalities. I know that Mr Cole-Hamlin earlier spoke about needing to lock in systems in case we encounter less benign ties. I am hopeful that there is a real focus in Scotland in and around inclusive growth. In that regard, the eyes of the world are certainly upon us and we are starting to make good progress. It is an area where there is much excitement and we can certainly be doing far more. I thank the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive answer and I share that positivity too. However, my question is more on a practical level if, over the course of the next few months, as local councils seek to sign off their budgets, if anything was to jump out at the cabinet secretary that, in any local authority area, there was any proposed cut to a front-line service that would effectively reduce their ability to deliver on the objectives of the equality budget or the equality agenda, would the cabinet secretary in any way seek to intervene on those decisions or, indeed, raise awareness of the fact that that would be quite counterintuitive to the agenda that all agencies share in Scotland to improve. It is more on a practical level if there is any commitment to monitor carefully the budgets of the local authorities as they pass that there are no efficiency savings or reductions or cuts that are made to any of those vital services. We have to recognise, and I am very conscious that, as a Government, we are often criticised for being centralised or, indeed, over-controlling, and, I suppose with respect, Mr Greene, some of that critique comes from your own benches. For understandable reasons, you are asking me how I can intervene to stop democratically elected councils making their own decisions if we, you know, so happens that we do not like them. We need to be careful. We have to have a mature adult approach to all this, and, with all the players in Civic Scotland, with its local national government, the third sector, we do indeed have to be having perhaps some, at times, quite difficult conversations about unintended consequences and impacts of other people's actions. This Government and local national government are continually dealing with the impacts of so-called welfare reform, highlighted in my opening statement that I spend £100 million across my portfolio on mitigating the worst aspects of welfare reform. That, of course, is £100 million that can't be invested in other equality measures, housing, education or health. I am never adverse to having conversations with anyone. I am never adverse to people having conversations with me—a big belief in whole truth to power—but we have to recognise that local authorities are democratically electable and accountable for their own decisions. I am accountable for the decisions that I make, but there are other players and other politicians who are accountable for the decisions that they make. It is about the tension that exists naturally between Scottish Government priorities and their deliveries by local authorities on the ground. From the outset, I absolutely agree with the rest of what the Cabinet Secretary says about not wishing to dictate what happens in local authorities. It is just about the principle and the processes that we make that real and deliver what everyone hopes we will deliver on the ground. That started with the presumption against ring fencing in the 2007 Concordat and the 15 national outcomes and the 45 indicators, which did not have a very heavy equalities focus. It is fair to say at the time, but that has been a process of continuous improvement. That was followed up with the single outcome agreement planning process in the reform of community planning. One of the things that really consistently stumbled there was a new reference in your last stance, the cabinet secretary, the accountability, that local authorities are accountable for their actions. I reference the single outcome agreement process again. There are many local authorities that would set very ambitious and laudable aims in their single outcome agreements. They would then miss those targets by a country mile and have no comeback and have no accountability for missing that. My question is, and without wanting to be heavy-handed, as a national government, are we getting that process right? Is it time that we look again at reforming the ways in which local authorities account to the people they serve for the targets that they set themselves and their miss, particularly in the equalities agenda? Given that the resonatria and the thrust of the local governance review at its heart is about promoting inclusive growth and tackling poverty and inequality and pursuing the local governance review in an open and transparent manner and inclusive manner that will engage communities, I think, gets to the heart of that. It enables a discussion about ideas, because we have said that we are open about ideas that promote inclusive growth. You cannot promote inclusive growth without tackling poverty and inequality and advancing equalities. I think that that is a huge opportunity. It is a big gateway into some of the issues and tensions that need to be unraveled. Mr Cole-Hamilton's key point is how we have systems in place, whether it is reporting or monitoring, whether it is around how the socio-economic duty works in practice or the review of the Scottish-specific duties. It is about how local governments are accountable to local communities, and that is where the line of sighters is. I know that I have spoken about it at length, but I think that the local governance review is a big opportunity here. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her answer to that. I think that we are absolutely in step on that. It is not about being heavy handed with local authorities. Before I came to this place, I remember being involved in a ministerial group around community planning. We had a continual discussion about what happens when we agree single outcome agreements, which are the contract that exists between local authorities and the Scottish Government, and those targets are missed. It came back to the reality that, ultimately, they are answerable to their communities and their electorates at the ballot box, but I am not aware of any individual voter who has ever cast a vote in a local government election based on a forensic analysis of what single outcome agreement targets have been missed. It strikes me that there is a disconnect in that. We do not again want to call in local authorities to account for how they spend their money or the decisions that they make, but it feels like there is a weak link in the chain somewhere. There is a danger here that we are looking at outcome agreements as lofty strategies and strategic documents. For example, there will be many local authority areas in Scotland that will need an acute need to increase affordable housing. You would expect affordable housing to be part of their key objectives. What we have said very clearly as a Government in terms of working proactively and supportively—there is just one example with local government around affordable housing—is that we have given the certainty around funding. We have published earlier this year the three-year resource planning assumptions. The allocation of that money is tied into delivery. If particular local authorities were not utilising or building enough houses around the resource planning assumptions, we would look to shift that resource to areas that were. That is an example of levers that we do and would be prepared to use in meeting an overall objective around 50,000 affordable homes, if that is perhaps a better and more real-life example. I will get a couple of quick questions for you and then a more substantive one. Have we got a timescale for the local governance review? It is in two phases. There will be an enabling group that will be formed at the start of next year. There are two phases to it and it could potentially lead into our future proposals around a local democracy bill. That bill is for later on in the Parliament, but in terms of the specific timings, I do not want to mislead you, but it is over the next year or two. We heard evidence on the role of the equality budget advisory group that they should have an individual with a race relations expert background on that. We suggested that a panel would be more beneficial, because if one person from one protected characteristic opens up the view that there should be someone from every protected characteristic, that could become quite difficult to manage. Is there any scope within the work of the equality budget advisory group of having a panel of people who have protected characteristics who come from the backgrounds and have the lived experience? I hear what you are saying. We need to be very clear that, in terms of the job that the equality budget advisory group requires, in depth, quite technical expertise around budgetary processes and that very acute analysis that goes with that and particularly around socioeconomic considerations. I suppose that I am trying to say a bit of an expert technical job that needs to be done. What the equality budget advisory group has always done and has been good at is inviting people in at appropriate points of its work. I have offered to meet the equality budget advisory group in terms of taking forward the recommendations that the budget process review group made in and around how we become more outcomes-focused. I would be keen to discuss with them how best they currently do that and in the future. I am always a wee bit nervous about creating more groups and panels because the equality advisory group is not a representative group, per se, if you catch my drift back. I can certainly discuss with them how at appropriate times they can continue to reach out to people who have other expertise in the work that they do around particular protected characteristics. I think that there is a recognition that while through the equality budget statement we have got better at looking through the lens of race, I think that it is certainly an area that we would all want to continually improve on as well. Okay, that takes me to another group that the Scottish Government has got. It is a ministerial working group on gypsy travellers. You would have heard the evidence that we heard a few weeks ago from some of the young people representative of the community, especially the very charismatic and detailed evidence of young David MacDonaldson, who was superb. We also heard from Roseanne and Seamus McPhee, who have got their own particular concerns. We have been talking a lot today about intersectionality. If there is one community where the health outcomes, the education outcomes, the employment outcomes are all in those deep pockets of inequality, how do we use your ministerial working group? The criticism that the people in front of us had two weeks ago was that there is nobody there for the community. We work better when people work with us rather than work for us, and that was a message that we heard loud and clear. We are looking to the Scottish Government to remedy that in a way that the gypsy traveller community feels that they are part of the changes that are being considered for them, rather than being told that this is the changes that we think are best for you. You will appreciate in terms of a ministerial working group that includes the title. I was very keen that, given that we really need to pick up the pace in that, given that your predecessor committees had scoped out a range of evidence, and given that we appointed the race equality adviser, she had a big focus on the work in and around gypsy travellers and tackling inequality. I think that we now need to take this up to a different level, and if I can be blunt and just say that there are things that we need to crack on with. I think that people rightly have the expectation that across Government and portfolio we need to be shown some leadership in all of this. I was very keen, and I am glad that my colleagues have agreed to pull together—all ministers and cabinet secretaries have a responsibility in this—to pull together a smaller group of ministers so that we can get our heads together and focus on action. That does not mean that we do that in isolation. I have got a series of engagements set up in the first part of next year to have more direct engagement with the gypsy traveller community. Indeed, we have reached out to the witnesses that appeared before this committee, and I am very pleased to say that they are keen to engage with my colleagues. Mr Stewart, over and above that, has separate engagements with the gypsy traveller communities. The ministerial working group is important that ministers have a bit of space. We can show some leadership and come to some views, but we will be scoping out our work programme, but we will be asking people to come and meet us individually or collectively. It will not be an exclusive process. A bit like other ministerial working groups that we can bring in experts and folk with lived experience to challenges, to keep us right and to inform the process every step of the way. I hope that the committee will understand that, given that we have had a wealth and range of evidence and concerns, it is my way of saying that the Government is serious about that. It does not mean that we will not continue to engage with people. We will work very hard at that, but we need to crack on. I want a group of ministers around the table to crack on. That will be really welcome news to all of the committee and certainly to the people that we are engaging with on that. One of the aspects of the evidence that we have heard over the years is that this community has been subject to lots of Government experiments in some cases. If we work hard not to go down that route, we might make a difference. Where we have seen a difference is where local authorities have worked incredibly well. South Lanarkshire is a good example of that with the gypsy traveller community. A lot of the challenges that other people might have in other areas do not exist to the same extent because of that joint working. However, a community has been subject to a lot of ministerial and Government interventions that have never really included them. They have always just been about them, and if we can change that, that would be very welcome indeed. We will certainly be working hard to include the community. Also picking up on your point, one of the things in the Rease Equality Action Plan was to hold a summit next year, a joint summit with COSLA and local authorities, to share the best practice. There are local authorities that are engaging well with the community and are doing good work. I am sure that I am correct in saying that Kevin Stewart has either been to Fife or has gone to Fife to look at some of the work that they are doing around the provision of sites, for example. There are examples of good practice, and I think that one of the Ayrshire councils does quite well. In terms of the guidance that we issued a year or two ago around to help local authorities to manage unauthorised sites, and there were great practical examples. It was one of the Ayrshire councils at Fife. I think that Perthyn Conross and South Lanarkshire council, the guidance was demonstrating that good practice is possible, but we need to share the good things that work. I have only one final question for the cabinet secretary. Is the committee got any other questions? Cabinet secretary, my final question is that you have had a pre-budget report almost from the committee. Is it okay for us to expect a response to that in the new year once? Absolutely. It might not be on 8 January, but I think that we will endeavour to respond to you as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Is there any other comments that you would want to add? No, other than to wish you all a very happy Christmas. To you, too. Thank you very much. That ends that agenda item. Before we move into private session, I want to take this opportunity to thank the cabinet secretary, our officials, all the witnesses who have given evidence over this last year, the work of the clerks and Spice, and the official report on everybody who has supported the committee. All of these voices just strengthen the work that we do and we look forward to taking forward some of that work in the new year. We are going to go into private now to consider our evidence from this morning, so I now suspend the committee to go into private.